I think most would agree that no marijuana use is better than marijuana use.

And most who use logic instead of emotion would conclude that the
punishments for the end user in the war on drugs has gone over the top. Our
prisons are full of people for drug use and possession crimes.

At a
minimum, we should be looking at decriminalization of many drug offenses
concerning marijuana.

When a society starts to debate whether a small amount of "dope" is
harmless, that society has lost its way. Marijuana is a drug. Except for its
limited use as a medicine, it is a drug that deadens those who take it. It is
known as "dope" for a reason.

Over one-hundred years ago,
the Lord gave us The Word of Wisdom which listed SOME of the things that were
harmful to the body. It was "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the
weakest of all saints". Notice that it was given to spare the
"weakest" people the despair of becoming addicted to tobacco, alcohol
and coffee. Marijuana is a drug that weakens those who smoke it. If society
cares about the "weakest", it will continue to ban marijuana.

Your logic is based on martinis (meaning alcohol) having no harmful effects. I
don't agree that martinis have no harmful affect. How many domestic
violence cases each day are fueled by alcohol abuse? How many deaths each year
on our highways from driving under the influence of alcohol? How many jobs and
families lost because the employee is addicted to alcohol?

Now... you
use the false-assumption that alcohol is harmless to rationalize expanding the
use of other drugs?

Not a logical case to me (based on a false
assumption).

===

I realize both can be harmful. So
expanding one just because the other is legal... is not compelling logic.

By that logic.... we should make arsenic legal. It has some medicinal
properties when used in minute doses.

No... just because alcohol is
legal (something I realize does much harm)... doesn't rationalize making
marijuana legal (which will also do much harm).

Making something we
know is harmful legal, just because we know something else that is also harmful
is legal... is not a strong argument for legalizing marijuana.

There
is another argument that makes more sense. I'll wait to see if anybody
brings it up.

Words of wisdom doesn't mention Marijuana, but it does mention red meat,
which is gladly ignored by your fellow members it's more about moderation
in ALL things including the diet coke epidemic among members, but it's
easier to spot a sinner smoking or drinking right?

This plant has
been used for over 5,000 years along side beer, the testing phase is complete
already.

Marijuana is proving to cure certain cancers so the CDC is
using old data, check with a country that allows scientific testing still, like
Israel.

It was simple ignorance that this was made illegal to begin
with and the same ignorance and religious force that is trying to keep it
illegal.

@ Mike RichardsYou write, "Over one-hundred years ago, the Lord gave
us The Word of Wisdom which listed SOME of the things that were harmful to the
body. It was "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all
saints". Notice that it was given to spare the "weakest" people the
despair of becoming addicted to tobacco, alcohol and coffee. Marijuana is a drug
that weakens those who smoke it. If society cares about the "weakest",
it will continue to ban marijuana."Our constitution seperates church
from state. Your religon's word of wisdom is meaningless in this debate.

Walking through the ailes of the grocery store, I declined far more products
than I purchased. Why? Many reasons, including those used in the arguments
against marijuana use and legalization. Do I crusade against those who purchase
products I decline myself? No, because I have basic respect for those with whom
I share proximity and am not pretentious enough to assume that I know
what's best for lives that are not my own and of whose circumstances I have
little knowledge. The drug war has objectively failed on all fronts - NOTHING
resembling the goals of our drug war have come to fruition. The true
conservative stance is to recognize failures, legalize, tax, and allocate the
funds toward endeavors aimed at alleviating the underlying reasons behind
destructive drug use. This would create an overall positive benefit for society.
It would also elevate our moral standing abroad.

Over one-hundred years ago,
the Lord gave us The Word of Wisdom which listed SOME of the things that were
harmful to the body. It was "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the
weakest of all saints". Notice that it was given to spare the
"weakest" people the despair of becoming addicted to tobacco, alcohol
and coffee. Marijuana is a drug that weakens those who smoke it. If society
cares about the "weakest", it will continue to ban marijuana.

7:53 a.m. Feb. 25, 2014

==========

I suppose you are in
favor of Sharia Laws, the abolishment of our Constituional Democratic Republic,
and are now prosoing a Theocracy based on God's word?

Mike,
Can't you see that this is the very kernel of why we do not agree.

My testimony is just as strong as yours.My love of Country is jsut as
strong as yours.

I Love a Free Country and allow others choice using
their Free Agency, while you evoke Religous dogma and apply a Mormon spin
to all Laws of the Land -- which I oppose.

Reading the headline I thought this would be another article about Global
Warming.

There is at least as much consensus that marijuana is bad
for your health and for society, as there is that Global Warming is gonna
gitcha.

Smoking marijuana is at least as bad for your lungs as
smoking tobacco, and worse than the air during an inversion (which seems to get
most people REALLY riled up). So why do the people who think the
inversion's going to kill their lungs have no problem with smoking
marijuana?

Lost: Let's see: twenty cigarettes in a pack and the average addicted
smoker has a habit between a pack and two packs a day. How many pot smokers have
more than a single joint or two a day? Now apply those numbers to the CDC
findings.

2 Bit: Smoking pot is a choice whereas breathing the air
around us is not. See the difference? Guess you have no one in your family with
a respiratory disease.

If marijuana and martinis are equally bad, perhaps logic dictates that BOTH
should be banned.

Just sayin'. The default position
doesn't always have to lean toward legalizing. There are plenty of good
reasons for prohibition, just as there are good reasons against it. But
don't discount the arguments you don't agree with.

How much poison is allowable? How much marihuana is acceptable before we, or
our children or our grandchildren are affected?

Claim all you want
for "freedom", but there is no freedom without accountability. If you
want to use marihuana or want your children to have full access to marihuana,
then please be good enough to tell us why a "soul" has so little
value and why you are willing to throw away "souls" so that you can
feed your appetites and passions.

@ Mike RichardsYou write, "Claim all you want for "freedom",
but there is no freedom without accountability. If you want to use marihuana or
want your children to have full access to marihuana, then please be goodenough to tell us why a "soul" has so little value and why you are
willing to throw away "souls" so that you can feed your appetites and
passions."

It's the same logic many Utahns use to justify
all their boats, ATV's, 3 car garages when defending their reason to
minimally support our public school system.

HVHplease do not insult us by quoting something from a source you hold in
disdain, or by trying to interpret LDS scripture that you clearly do not
believe.

Grover,so just because a stoner uses less MJ than a
smoker uses tobacco makes the MJ less carcinogenic? Sorry, doesn't
wash.

airnaut,you have no grounds to speak concering the
inversion, you live in Everett, WA. But by the logic you put forth, NO ONE who
smokes weed can complain about the inversion, because they choose to damage
their lungs with weed. You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't
impact those around you. OK, tell the victims of stoned driving that they were
not impacted.